Rest of the text:

I am a free man and I intend to stay that way
Alain Ménargues
Interview by Silvia Cattori

The life of Alain Ménargues - vice-director of Radio France International -
changed overnight in October 2004. No sooner had his book "Le mur de Sharon"
("Sharon's Wall") been published than he brutally found himself caught in
one of those ideological campaigns where lies are mixed with the irrational.
Accused of "anti-Semitism", Alain Ménargues was dismissed from his
functions. The suspicion of anti-Semitism - with all the manipulations that
can follow - weighs heavily upon the heads of any public personage who
criticizes Israel. It can destroy careers and ruin lives. Alain Ménargues is
the most recent living proof.

Silvia Cattori : Didn't you knowingly break a taboo by affirming that Israel is racist?

Alain Ménargues :The texts are there. I invented nothing. The Jewish State of
Israel is considered legally racist by the United Nations.

S.C. You paid dearly. Have you been affected by it?

A.M. : I am resolved to fight against all those who unjustly accuse honest
people. You know that for a long time I have been engaged in information in
the Middle East. I know very well, from having observed it closely, how
Israel exercises its control over information. Since the 1970s there exists
a military information service. There is a department that occupies itself
exclusively with the press. Every journalist who goes to Israel is given a
press card delivered by a press service that is dependent upon the army. It
is therefore obviously the army that is charged, among others, to shape the
image of Israel in the world. All Israeli embassies have a public relations
service, diplomats whose job it is to assure that the good image of Israel
is preserved. In the affair that concerns me, the embassies of Israel in
Paris and Brussels intervened. They put pressure on journalists via what we
call agents of influence: in order to have it said I am anti-Semite, that
is, to take away my credibility and dissuade other journalists from echoing
my remarks.

S.C. Was this reported to you from a reliable source?

A.M. Yes, I can give you the proof. There are journalists who can confirm
it.

S.C. How can a State intervene so openly?

A.M. It is what is called in communications manipulation. In my case, it was
done in a very precise way. I represent a textbook case. With my last book,
[1], I hit on a sensitive point, especially as Israel's image is
deteriorating more and more. There is a report from the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, dated last August, which analyses the image of Israel. This report
shows that Israel has lost the world media battle. That Israel risks to be
classified, very soon, in the same ranks as apartheid South Africa. My book
arrived at the right moment.

S.C. Why such an outburst against you when so many things have been already
written in the specialist media and on Internet sites?

A.M. I don't have the reputation of someone who transgresses the
requirements of correctly providing information. In that which concerns
Israeli politics I am very rigorous in what I write. I speak of the rights
of children, of women, and the abuses they suffer in regards to Israel as
for other countries. Israel is not a country apart from other countries. I
call, therefore, simply for the application of the resolutions of the UN,
which Israel ignores. Consequently, to eliminate me, to drive me from my
posts of responsibility, a post in the media, is a way of killing two birds
with one stone for my detractors. I am preparing a document on this subject.

S.C. So you are not laying down your arms?

A.M. I am going to fight. I won't let them do this to me.

S.C. Are you fighting to get back your job at RFI?

A.M. No, it is impossible to return to RFI. I am fighting to obtain justice.

S.C. Do you have a concrete project?

A.M. Yes, we are in the process of putting together a foundation grouping
together at least 100 journalists, that will have as its task to verify that
those who are accused of anti-Semitism are accused for the right reasons.

S.C. Journalists who are part of editorial boards in France?

A.M. Yes, journalists who are well-known professionally in France as well as
other countries. The goal is that every time a person is suspected of
anti-Semitism and described as such by the media, his case would be examined
by our foundation. If it happens that the person is falsely accused, we will
intervene to demand that the true facts be established. A way of saying that
we will no longer accept the manipulation.

S.C. Do you think you will intervene only when someone is accused of
anti-Semitism or for all cases of racism?

A.M. I begin with the idea that there is in France a latent anti-Arab racism
and a latent anti-Jew racism. To deny this would be dishonest. Beginning
with this, there can be offshoots from one or the other part. However, in
most cases, these accusations are not well-founded. We use the term
anti-Semitism, as in my case, to break someone's will, career or to cast
aside those who embarrass us. So the committee that we are setting up will
have as task to denounce the manipulations. As soon as an affair breaks, it
will immediately be taken into account by our "committee of one hundred".

S.C. When will you be operational?

A.M. Soon. I hope by December 2004.

S.C. Do you really think the media will follow up on your action?

A.M. Yes, I think so. I believe in the honesty of people. I have worked in
this trade for thirty years. No one among my colleagues would ever have
thought, before these attacks against me were unleashed, that one day I
could be treated as a racist or an anti-Semite. These labels have nothing to
do with my career or my concern to inform. I have friends who, like me, work
ed on the ground as war correspondents and who are still on the ground. All
these professionals know me, know that what I say is true. They can only
support me.

S.C. You didn't expect such attacks?

A.M. In my book "Sharon's Wall", on page 11, I had a foreboding of what
would happen to me. But not to this degree. Curiously, my book was not
attacked. It is what I said during a conference that is being questioned.

S.C. Did the fact that you discussed religious questions also not help?

A.M. It is true that I work on the influence of religions in the world. In
Iraq we can speak of different religious tendencies. Bush brings religion
into all his declarations. But as soon as you say that Israel is what it is,
a theocratic State, the shields go up. I talked about "Leviticus", of impure
and pure, that separates and that has a link with the wall. For it is a
constituent element. It sufficed for me to evoke this on the radio for
things to degenerate into a real fist-fight. If at the beginning the
theoreticians of the Zionist state were secular, and the religious had
condemned the very concept of Zionism, the religious later took an extremely
important weight. Especially since 1987. All laws pass by the religious.
Moreover, it is a religion that considers itself superior to any other. I
feel free to speak about all religions. People of the Jewish faith speak
themselves of the "chosen people". Why shouldn't I have the right to bring
up this notion of the "chosen people"?

S.C. In continuing to speak like this, don't you risk worsening your case?

A.M. What you are suggesting is that I be silent, that I not fight. There
are people who manipulate the information in France. The daily "Liberation"
assassinated me. And I should be quiet? I began my professional life in
Vietnam. I traversed many difficulties. I have the habit of putting things
into perspective. My affair is nothing compared to what is going on
elsewhere and notably in Palestine. I am not a man of power. In an interview
with the Belgian daily "Le soir", I said that my freedom of expression was
not worth several stripes on my shoulder. I am a free man and I intend to
stay that way. No honours, no money, no job will prevent me from saying what
I wish. When I signed my contract with RFI, there was a restrictive clause
that I had removed. That I be held to be discrete on internal affairs is
normal, but, for the rest, you cannot demand of a journalist that he not
speak.

S.C. Were you hurt when you were forbidden to work?

A.M. Hurt isn't the word. I am strongly irritated to see that in France
there is a fundamental liberty that is in the process of disappearing. And
this is a fact that can only bring to me react, to fight. In my country,
that is France, I can't imagine that there is an intellectual terrorism that
forces people to shut up under pain of being completely crushed. I am
outraged to observe such a thing. So, hurt personally, no. I knew that this
pressure existed. But since it has happened to me, I measure all its
importance.

S.C. Are you referring to these campaigns designed to whitewash Israel and
to blacken the Muslim Arabs who march, especially since September 11?

A.M. Yes. I believe that this is pure manipulation in the sense of public
relations. Israel was able to evolve for more than half a century under the
image of victim. But this image of victim has started strongly to crumble.
Especially since 1982, after the massacres of Sabra and Chatila. Since then,
the heads of Israeli propaganda have been forced to finance campaigns in
order to not lose their status of victim. To do this, they have used every
possible public relations technique possible and imaginable. An example:
while in France and the United States above all, we forbid the television
networks to show cadavers, caskets, and the burial of soldiers in case of
conflict, Israeli TV, when there is an attack in their country, do the
opposite. Each time there is an attack in Israel, their information service
broadcasts repeatedly images of blown apart corpses in order to shock and
mobilize opinion. This is the technique of manipulation through the image.
The Palestinians do the same thing. I don't distinguish between the two. But
in the case of Israel, these images of exploded buses, abundantly broadcast,
are distributed freely to all the world's networks. So, while here we show
cadavers in a very vague way, precisely to lessen the shock, in Israel, the
shock is a commentary.

S.C. How do they proceed in detail?

A.M. There is in their world of communication something extraordinary.
Israel counts, in every embassy, a communication officer who intervenes
systematically with the help of the agents of influence. This is what
happened in my case. The Israeli embassy intervenes with some journalists to
let them know that such a person is an anti-Semite and should be silenced.
Here is France, the lawyer Goldnadel [2], is one of these agents of
influence who act on the behalf of Israel. This lawyer reproached me for
having spoken of "Leviticus" on Radio Courtoisie. "Leviticus" is the fourth
book of the Torah where there is the question of pure and impure. The Torah
is part of the Bible. So what prevents me from speaking about the Torah?

S.C. But to go on Radio Courtoisie, politically marked, isn't that to open
yourself to criticisms?

A.M. It is a Catholic radio station situated on the extreme right. But, when
Mr. Goldnadel made his accusations, he forgot to say that he has himself
gone four times on Radio Courtoisie. He is not shy to make accusations like
"Ménargues talks about 'Leviticus' on a radio of the extreme right,
therefore he is from the extreme right". All this, which comes from mixing
things up, has the precise goal of maintaining confusion. The same thing
happened in Belgium when I went to promote my book. The Israeli embassy
telephoned a journalist to tell him not to interview me because I was
"anti-Semitic". But, of what do they accuse me? When I talk about Zionism, I
refer to Zionism as a colonial political theory, a policy that wishes to
create a Jewish State for Jews in a zone that was already inhabited. To say
this is not going against the truth. It is unfortunately the truth. Zionism
was born in Basle in the context of colonial expansion. The world has
changed its view regarding colonialism. When Sharon says that "the war of
independence of 1948 is not over and that each meter gained is a gain for
Israel", it is a colonial attitude. But when people denounce this sort of
affirmation they are vilified. For me, Israel is a country like any other. I
don't see why we reserve for it a special treatment. We must speak of what
happens there. I say it over and over. On the airwaves of this radio
association, that has a very marked connotation of the Right, all sorts of
people express themselves. Mr. Philippe de Saint Robert, who questioned me
for Radio Courtoisie, is a leftist Gaullist.

S.C. So those who were unleashed upon you after your appearance on Radio
Coutoisie, participated in a manipulation?

A.M. Absolutely. A manipulation led above all by a man like M. Goldnadel,
who had himself been interviewed several times on this radio station.
Everyone can see today how we make confused associations to destroy someone.
M. Goldnadel made such a mix by putting together under the same heading my
name, Leviticus, Gollnish, who is number two at the Front national, the
Shoah. All that with the clear intention of defaming me and sowing
confusion. Among citizens of the Jewish faith, there are two worlds. Those
who feel French of the Jewish faith, and those who feel first Jewish, then
Israeli, and finally French. These are two totally different worlds. One
must determine which has an exacerbated nationalist spirit and which
considers his religion as a simple religion. There is a whole ambiguity of
message and language around this question.

S.C. Why don't more journalists describe things as they are?

A.M. Because certain of them must pay the bills at the end of the month.
There are many journalists who share the same understanding of things as me.
But they are not free. The bosses of the press are afraid of losing
subscribers, income from advertising.

S.C. When you were let go, didn't the attitude of the Society of Journalists
[la Société des journalists) weigh against you?

A.M. Radio France internationale is 400 journalists in Paris and 300
correspondents dispersed throughout the world. This Society of Journalists
is composed of 15 people, of whom only three are active. This is what
happened. I had launched a basic reform that put those who merited it in
front. That bothered people's habits. There was already a malaise.

S.C. So some profited from this to take their revenge?

A.M. As soon as I was accused of anti-Semitism, the latent discontent
expressed itself.

S.C. Why do so few journalists break free of the crowd?

A.M. This gets back to what, in the media, corresponds to the "politically
correct", and which is, in reality, the expression of complete intolerance.
France has fallen into intellectual intolerance. What is extraordinary is
that, when we watch television, the people who incarnate the "politically
correct" are the uncultivated. My grandmother said "Culture is like jam. The
more we spread it around, the less we have." We are far removed from the
time when we had debates, where people confronted each other with arguments:
Today we don't confront each other. There are no more quality debates. We
assist at a continuous shower of anathemas on all the television networks
and in the media in general. The "politically correct" doesn't think, doesn'
t read, and has no references. Look at what happened to Dieudonné who is an
artist. Was he too much or not enough of a provocateur? But isn't
provocation part of an exchange of arguments? Shouldn't one provoke in order
to get a reaction? The role of the media is not to condemn. When Tariq
Ramadan develops an idea, why insult him? If we aren't in agreement with
him, engage him in a debate. But not a lynching. And what if we listened to
him? That would be more constructive than to blacken him and reject him.

S.C. You are evoking figures upon whom accusations of anti-Semitism are
continually showered. Is that not what awaits you?

A.M. As soon as we criticize Israel, we are accused of anti-Semitism. By
accusing everyone of being anti-Semitic, you finish by rendering the term
anti-Semitism banal. These excesses will finish by turning against the State
of Israel and, unfortunately, against the citizens of the Jewish faith who
accept all these abuses. After what I have undergone, I received thousands
of emails expressing their sympathy and also their exasperation. The
intolerance of one risks to make a bed of blazing hate for others. All this
should make us think.

S.C. Is this intolerance maintained and is anti-Semitism exaggerated
according to you?

A.M. I don't believe in the spontaneity of the reactions. There is, from the
evidence, a manipulation. Look at what has happened in France these last few
months. There were acts attributed to anti-Semitism that were found to be
organized by people of the Jewish faith. There is a base of anti-Semitism
that is inscribed in the Christian tradition. A basis that is minimal. But,
it is certain that by continuing to mobilize society nonsensically on the
theme of anti-Semitism, we can not but exasperate people. These last months,
we have seen Ministers go out and be moved at least four times by acts
provoked against themselves by citizens of the Jewish faith who claimed to
be victims. There was the case of the rabbi who stabbed himself, of the
synagogue set afire by a drunken Jew. And everyone got stirred up without
verifying the truthfulness of the facts.

S.C. How to put an end to these manipulations?

A.M. By reason and tolerance. One and all must better verify, better
separate the true from the false and only condemn when there is reason to do
so. But not as it is done now where the whole society is mobilizes a prioi
around anti-Semitism. We are on a very dangerous slope. People make
accusations too quickly and journalists don't do their work of verification
and explanation. This brings with it dangers.

S.C. So you attribute the responsibility on the one hand to those who raise
the specter of anti-Semitism and on the other to ignorance?

A.M. Yes. And to the a-culture of journalists and opinion makers. I think
there is a desire to manipulate. When Bernard-Henri Levy allows himself to
fence with words to demonstrate that being anti-Zionist really means one is
an anti-Semite, it is nonsense. It is false. Were anti-Gaullists
anti-French? Were anti-communists anti-Slavs? This uselessly stirs up and
confuses things.

S.C. Did the Ruffin Report that yet again drives in the nail of
anti-Semitism surprise you?

A.M. The Ruffin Report is a scandal. We would no longer have the right to
criticize one country alone, therefore we could no longer think. One thing
should concern us here. The one country that has as legal parent the United
Nations' Security Council is Israel. The United Nations has voted a large
number of resolutions that have never been applied. Why? Is this tolerable
in a world that needs justice and stability? There is the big problem.

S.C. The more I listen to you, the more I sense your determination to react.
So they have not succeeded in breaking you?

A.M. Ola là-là. No. I figure that what happened to me is just one of those
things that happen [un accident de parcours]. They didn't break me. They
will not shut me up. I will continue to express myself, with the means I
have, to say what I see. If I make errors, I am ready to accept all
condemnations. But my remarks were never shown to be false. They condemned
me because I spoke.

S.M. It didn't get empty around you?

A.M. No, no. On the contrary. There are an enormous number of people who
contacted me to ask me to continue.

S.C. Do you have any resentment regarding those who attacked you?

A.M. No, none. The media is collective. I'll eventually get angry at the
editors in chief who distributed texts without verifying the terms. Not
against the journalists. They do their job the best they can. If they are
manipulated, it is for them to know the limits. Those really responsible are
the editors in chief.

S.C. Has what has happened to you made you pessimistic?

A.M. Not at all. There will inevitably be an evolution of things. Certainly,
everything is put into place by Israel to prevent people from knowing what
happens. This is what the Israeli embassies and their agents of
communication or influence do: prevent the base from knowing and from
intervening with their leaders. You can't lie all the time. Israel has lost
the media battle. Israel can no longer pass itself off as the victim. Israel
is the aggressor. People won't wait long before understanding who the
murderers are. In spite of all the means used to smother the truth,
eyewitness reports will end up by coming out. I am convinced that the
political figures in Europe will end up being pushed by their base. They
will be forced to take decisions the day that the people really start to
move. In a democracy, as long as the people don't move, the power won't
move.

S.C. How is it possible to have such a power over editorial boards and for
such a long period of time?

A.M. By doing what they have done until now: media campaigns based upon
lies. They use every means and they have the money to do it.

S.C. Do you have an example?

A.M. There is a person who edits an article that accuses someone of being
"anti-Semitic". This article is picked up by journalists who don't verify
the origin of this information. It is as simple as that. There are evidently
some subjects that receive a particular echo.

S.C. But these articles, the fruits of manipulation, where do they start?

A.M. There is a non governmental organization called "Lawyers without
borders" (Avocat sans frontiers). Created by Mr. Goldnadel, this NGO is a
sort of illusion because there already exists in France another NGO called
"Lawyers Without Borders of France" (Avocats sans frontières de France).
When Mr. Goldnadel sends out an article under the name of "Lawyers Without
Borders", the journalist is not going to verify who is behind this NGO. So
the name given by Mr. Goldnadel lends to confusion. Mr. Goldnadel attacks
everyone for anti-Semitism. Daniel Mermet, Pascal Boniface, and many others.
All the media abundantly talked about the accusations he made, but when Mr.
Goldnadel lost the cases he undertook against them, the media didn't mention
it. That's how it happens.

S.C. Do you see a possible evolution in the way of informing people?

A.M. If everyone said what they knew, the truth, we wouldn't be there. If
all journalists really did their work honestly, we could stop the flood of
lies that unfold about everything that touches the Arab world. What is
reassuring is that the readers and listeners are more intelligent and
cultivated than those who inform them. I am discovering that with happiness
in my meetings and emails I receive.

Paris, November 2004

silv...@yahoo.it

[1] Le mur de Sharon. (Sharon's Wall) Presse de la Renaissance, Paris, 2004.

[2] The association « Avocats sans frontières » that M. Goldnadel directs in
France, goes after those who criticise it.

Translated from the French by www.signs-of-the-times.org
http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/translations.htm